Rob Harriman: Hanratty - The DNA Travesty (Kindle E-Book)

[Victor]

Hi Victor -The Home Office requested Scotland Yard to do an internal report on the case and Detective Chief Superintendent Roger Matthews was appointed to lead a twenty man team of detectives to look at all the evidence in all the files.

Hi Natalie,

A report that was never published and was superseded by the case being passed to the CCRC who also looked at all the evidence in all the files, and they concluded that the DNA evidence made a strong case even stronger!

KR,
Vic.

[GUT]

G'day Natalie

Was that report ever released or only the conclusions, I've read about the conclusions reached but have never seen the report.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Victor -The Home Office requested Scotland Yard to do an internal report on the case and Detective Chief Superintendent Roger Matthews was appointed to lead a twenty man team of detectives to look at all the evidence in all the files.This took a year to produce and involved looking at all the files kept by police on the case including those that are sealed.Matthews concluded Hanratty was entirely innocent and could not have committed the crime.Without naming names in public Matthews suggested that there were three people involved. Others have suspected that two of these people were William Ewer and Dixie France but so far in public, Matthews has not been drawn on confirming this or any other name.

[Victor]

It does not mean that at all Victor. Firstly, Hanratty's handkerchief may never have been at the crime scene and if it was it could have been taken there by the killer. Alternatively, it could well have been obtained soon after the crime and discarded along with the gun. There is no indication of precisely when Hanratty blew his nose on the handkerchief. It could have been days before the murder.

Hi Julie,

I don't understand, your comment above agrees with most of what I said:-

it does mean that after the crime the murderer who had had a handkerchief round their mouth, must have got hold of a handkerchief that Hanratty had recently blown his nose on, wrapped it round the gun, and within 36 hours dumped the 2 items plus bullets together on a bus.

I agree that it could have been an accomplice rather than the murderer who dumped the gun, but you still have to have the murderer discarding the handkerchief from round his face and getting the gun and bullets together with one Hanratty had blown his nose on fairly recently. How long do you think the fashion-conscious Hanratty would have kept a dirty handkerchief before replacing it?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

So here is another completely plausible scenario that does not include Hanratty being either the gunman or having placed the gun on the bus.

Hi Derrick,

We obviously have different definitions of "plausible" because you've just introduced France and A.N.Other into a convoluted conspiracy theory without any evidence.

France, a notorious police informer and source of non-kosher weaponry

Have you got any evidence for these assertions?

It is also plausible that France did two other things.

Firstly he told Ewer that Hanratty would be in the vicinity of the cleaners the week after the murder. Hanratty obviously told France that he was going straight out to buy his mum some flowers and to visit the dry cleaners.

Secondly he planted the two cartridge cases in room 24 of the Vienna Hotel not long after that; having known that Hanratty stayed at the Vienna once Hanratty had shown France the Vienna bill on the Friday following the A6 murder.

Well I'd say it was possible that France did those things, but not plausible, unless you have any evidence?

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Derrick, have you heard about this story?

http://www.truecrimelibrary.com/crime_series_show.php?series_number=11&id=1512

It's somewhat similar to the A6 case. Although it would not be the same killer, it shows that this type of crime was not unique.

[Derrick]

Hi Derrick,

Plausible indeed. I have often posed the possibility that the killer was neither Alphon or Hanratty and that he disappeared into the night and was never caught for the A6 crime.

Julie

Hi Julie
That is my view. Neither Hanratty nor Alphon was the A6 killer; the whole of the evidence doesn't support either being such.

Del

[Limehouse]

Hi Derrick,

Plausible indeed. I have often posed the possibility that the killer was neither Alphon or Hanratty and that he disappeared into the night and was never caught for the A6 crime.

Julie

[Derrick]

It does not mean that at all Victor. Firstly, Hanratty's handkerchief may never have been at the crime scene and if it was it could have been taken there by the killer. Alternatively, it could well have been obtained soon after the crime and discarded along with the gun. There is no indication of precisely when Hanratty blew his nose on the handkerchief. It could have been days before the murder.

Hi Julie
The hanky was certainly Hanratty's; the MtDNA tests done by John Bark in 1997 prove this.
Yet:
Charlotte France was doing Hanratty's laundry at this time.
Dixie France also had access to guns when he worked at the Harmony.

http://www.classiccafes.co.uk/confessional_harmony.htm

So here is another completely plausible scenario that does not include Hanratty being either the gunman or having placed the gun on the bus.

His friend and mentor, France, a notorious police informer and source of non-kosher weaponry could have provided a gun to X (someone as yet unknown) and when he got it back wrapped it in one of Hanratty's hanky's and placed the lot in Hanratty's favoured hiding place. He then gave evidence that that was where Hanratty told him he disposed of stuff.

It is also plausible that France did two other things.

Firstly he told Ewer that Hanratty would be in the vicinity of the cleaners the week after the murder. Hanratty obviously told France that he was going straight out to buy his mum some flowers and to visit the dry cleaners.

Secondly he planted the two cartridge cases in room 24 of the Vienna Hotel not long after that; having known that Hanratty stayed at the Vienna once Hanratty had shown France the Vienna bill on the Friday following the A6 murder.

Therefore it is quite plausible that Hanratty was framed and the A6 murderer will never be known; France and Ewer being dead.

Del

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

I agree, it doesn't indicate that Hanratty fired the murderous shot, but it does mean that after the crime the murderer who had had a handkerchief round their mouth, must have got hold of a handkerchief that Hanratty had recently blown his nose on, wrapped it round the gun, and within 36 hours dumped the 2 items plus bullets together on a bus.
KR,
Vic.

It does not mean that at all Victor. Firstly, Hanratty's handkerchief may never have been at the crime scene and if it was it could have been taken there by the killer. Alternatively, it could well have been obtained soon after the crime and discarded along with the gun. There is no indication of precisely when Hanratty blew his nose on the handkerchief. It could have been days before the murder.

[Victor]

But it does not place Hanratty at the scene of the crime.

Hi Julie,

I agree, it doesn't indicate that Hanratty fired the murderous shot, but it does mean that after the crime the murderer who had had a handkerchief round their mouth, must have got hold of a handkerchief that Hanratty had recently blown his nose on, wrapped it round the gun, and within 36 hours dumped the 2 items plus bullets together on a bus. The probability that these 2 handkerchiefs are the same cannot be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. It is perfectly true that there is no concrete proof that the 2 handkerchiefs are the same, but the connection cannot be denied.

What if the murder weapon had had finger prints on it belonging to the person who supplied the gun to the killer? Those prints are a direct link between the person and the weapon used in the crime. But the finger prints do not necessarily place the person at the scene of the crime.

In this case we have the fingerprints of a man guilty of illegal weapons trading or some related crime, and the likelihood of those prints being obscured by the killers (or smeared out by gloves) is again high. They are not innocent fingerprints, but they may not be guilty of murder.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

I've read the first chapter and one thing keeps bothering me...

Hanratty's handkerchief was found wrapped around the murder weapon. How is this not a link between Hanratty and the crime?

Now I can accept that complicated conspiracy theories can be proposed for how these 2 items came to be found together, but it's still a direct link between the weapon used in the crime, and a handkerchief that Hanratty had blown his nose on.

KR,
Vic.

But it does not place Hanratty at the scene of the crime.

What if the murder weapon had had finger prints on it belonging to the person who supplied the gun to the killer? Those prints are a direct link between the person and the weapon used in the crime. But the finger prints do not necessarily place the person at the scene of the crime.

[Victor]

I've read the first chapter and one thing keeps bothering me...

Hanratty's handkerchief was found wrapped around the murder weapon. How is this not a link between Hanratty and the crime?

Now I can accept that complicated conspiracy theories can be proposed for how these 2 items came to be found together, but it's still a direct link between the weapon used in the crime, and a handkerchief that Hanratty had blown his nose on.

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

...I very much doubt I would understand a word of it!...

Hi Caz
Just read chapter 1

Let me know what you think.

Del

[caz]

Hi Del,

Judging by your latest post on the other thread, I very much doubt I would understand a word of it!

But I wish you and others the best of luck in getting the authorities to look again at the DNA evidence that was considered conclusive at the time of the 2002 appeal.

There is never an argument against questioning what has gone before.

Love,

Caz
X